[PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

[PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

[Matthew Garrett]

Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
that this isn't what's meant.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
---
 COPYING |    6 ++++++
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
index ca442d3..4cda18e 100644
--- a/COPYING
+++ b/COPYING
@@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
 
+ While this version of the GPL does not place an explicit timeframe
+ upon fulfilment of source distribution under section 3(b), it is the
+ consensus viewpoint of the Linux community that such distribution
+ take place as soon as is practical and certainly no more than 14 days
+ after a request is made.
+
 			Linus Torvalds
 
 ----------------------------------------
-- 
1.7.4

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

[Alan Cox]

On Mon,  7 Feb 2011 18:09:04 -0500
Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com> wrote:

> Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
> insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
> timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
> for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
> that this isn't what's meant.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>

1. You've put it so it as if Linus said it
2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
before it goes in

Unless it's been past someone with legal knowledge you risk making the
problem worse not better even when doing apparently sane things.

You may also be weakening things if the legal view is that there being no
timescale means that the two should be going out together.

Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] Clarify source code distribution requirements

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:18:40AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon,  7 Feb 2011 18:09:04 -0500
> Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
> > insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
> > timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
> > for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
> > that this isn't what's meant.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
> 
> 1. You've put it so it as if Linus said it

If he merged it, he effectively would be saying it...

> 2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
> before it goes in

And yes, I'd expect legal feedback to be a requirement.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org